The property is a detached
house, and the application was for two proposed outbuildings, one of which would be a garage and the other a
garden studio. The latter would have been positioned 2.0m from the boundary, and would have had a flat roof at
height 2.75m.

The key issue was whether the
height of the proposed garden studio would be contrary to Class E, part E.1(e), which states that “Development
is not permitted by Class E if … the height of the eaves of the building would exceed 2.5
metres”.

The Inspector focused on
whether a “lip” around the outer edge of the flat roof, consisting of an aluminium strip with projection approx
1cm, would fall within the definition of “eaves” for the purposes of Class E, part E.1(e). The Inspector noted
that his attention had been drawn to a number of definitions of the word “eaves”, some of which refer to the
lower edge of a sloping roof, and all of which refer to “overhanging”. He concluded that the “lip” would
not fall within the definition of eaves, and that therefore the proposed outbuilding, with a flat roof at
height 2.75m, would be permitted development.

Although not specifically
stated by the Inspector, perhaps the more significant implication of this appeal decision is that the edge of
the flat roof itself (i.e. without the “lip”) does not constitute “eaves” for the purposes of Class E,
part E.1(e).

[Note: The
above conclusion for Class E, part E.1(e), in conjunction with the wording of Class E, part E.1(d), implies
that, for an outbuilding not within 2m of a boundary, the following maximum heights apply:

In my
opinion, the irony resulting from the above conclusion is that such an outbuilding could have a
flat roof at height 3m, but could not have a mono-pitch roof at height 2.6m-3.0m, even though the latter
has less impact, both visually and upon neighbour amenity. Indeed, were enforcement action to be taken against
an outbuilding with height 2.6m-3.0m, this conclusion would imply that a fall-back position would be to
increase the height of the outbuilding, by raising its eaves by 0.4m to convert the pitched roof into a
flat roof

Furthermore,
in my opinion, the above conclusion (i.e. that the edge of a flat roof does not constitute “eaves”) could
potentially cause significant problems if also applied to the term “eaves” in Class A, part A.1(g). This
is because Class A, part A.1(g) is typically the only limitation that would prevent a two-storey rear extension
close to (i.e. within 2m), or indeed next to, a boundary with a neighbouring property. For example, on a
mid-terrace property, typically the only reason a full-width two-storey rear extension would not be
permitted development is because Class A, part A.1(g) would not allow the "eaves” to be higher than
3m.

However, if it is accepted – in my opinion,
wrongly – that the edge of a flat roof does not constitute “eaves”, then on a two-storey mid-terrace
property with a flat roof, a full-width two-storey rear extension would be permitted development, even
though this would result in a two-storey wall next to the boundary with a neighbouring property, which would
have an extremely significant impact upon the amenity of the latter. Indeed, as an even more extreme
example, on a four-storey mid-terrace property with a flat roof, a full-width four-storey rear
extension would be permitted development, even thought this would result in a four-storey wall next to
the boundary with a neighbouring property … !

In my
opinion, it is possible to avoid the above problems if it is accepted that the edge of a flat roof does
constitute “eaves”. In my opinion, this can be done by reference to the definition of “eaves” within the
Compact Oxford English Dictionary, which is as follows:

“Eaves:
(plural noun) the part of a roof that meets or overhangs the walls of a building”

As such, in
my opinion, it could be argued that the edge of a flat roof (or indeed the top of a parapet wall), is “the part
of a roof that meets the walls [of the extension]”, and therefore constitutes “eaves”. This would mean that a
flat roof (or indeed a parapet wall) would be subject to the height restrictions within Class A, part
A.1(c), Class A, part A.1(g) and Class E, part E.1(e)].

Main
Conclusions:

·The term “eaves” does not
apply to the edge of a flat roof (note: in this particular case, the flat roof would not have an overhang
that would project beyond the line of the walls).[Note: This would appear to contradict
at least one other appeal decision – for further information see the entry in the “Reference Section” on
“Eaves”].[Relevant to: “Eaves”, A.1(c), A.1(g),
E.1(e)].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):